The basis of this debate is to state whether or not you agree that there should be financial assistance provided to lower/middle class citizens (worldwide) for families to place they're children into enriched learning environments such as Private Schools, Waldorf Programs as well as Montessori without becoming indebted.

If you agree, please state why. If not, please provide solid facts as to why you do not see this as feasible considering all influential factors. For example, governmental policies, social structure and availability of sources.

In the final round, I would like some suggestions as to how we could push for something like this, if it is commonly agreed that this opportunity would prove as beneficial for those in need.

As it currently stands there is no Governmental assistance programs available (in Canada at least) to lower class/middle class citizens to enroll they're children into AAA educational systems. Only by means of bank loan or Employment Insurance may you have any chance. (Why would your child be on EI?)

Without bias, I can assure you this is very disheartening to parents who simply wish to provide the best education for they're child possible. While feeling disgruntled and inhibited by lack of support from the government. Also dissatisfaction in physically not being able to produce the outrageous amounts of money demanded for these programs. Rightfully speaking, this choice should be one of the parent- as you can see... the type of statutes existing here creates separation through predictive placement.

It is $10,000 fee just for Kindergarten in a Montessori school setting. You are looking at a million dollar education here up to gr 12 , not including continued education and specialty colleges. This poses questions such as;

A) Purposeful and or directional citizen class placement? Meaning, executively making these desired programs easily accessible to the rich and high class, thus forcing out common and working class peoples by way of making it difficult or unlikely to come up with funds.

B) Why are those with wealth favoured?

Furthermore, to add emphasis on "Enriched programs". Why are they considered superior to Catholic or Generic/Public systems-
"In more everyday terms, Montessorians disagree with the idea that all children learn in the exact same way at the exact same time of their life. They believe that a good teacher doesn't say, "It is the 4th day, of the 3rd month, of second grade, so open your math book to page 49 and…" Instead we observe each child and ask ourselves, "What does this child understand? What is the next concept this child needs to learn? In which way does this child learn? (Are they observers? Talkers? Someone who needs to physically experience things? Do colors make things more clear? How about singing a song about the concept, will that help this particular child learn?...) What things interest this child so that I can use his/her natural interests and abilities to teach this concept that they need to know?"

And without going to much in depth, a brief overview of the curriculum/philosophy and origin

Montessori Philosophy

In 1907, Dr. Maria Montessori, Italy's first female physician, introduced a revolutionary approach towards the way children are educated. She incorporated her scientific understanding of human development with her passion for mathematics, physics, natural sciences, anthropology, psychology and philosophy.

Through years of observation and scientific study, she created a system that looked at the development of the entire child. She believed that all children possess an intellectual and creative potential, an internal desire to learn and the ability to direct themselves in this learning.

In carefully prepared classrooms, children are grouped together in three-year age spans where they have the ability to learn the role of following and then leading. Classes are both multi-aged and multi-graded and are based on specific planes of development. Primary programs are for children ages 3-6; Lower Elementary is for ages 6-9 (Grades 1-3); and, Upper elementary is for ages 9-12 (Grades 4-6).

This method is commonly know as self directed learning and has proved to be highly effective, please see below articles as supporting documentation.http://psycnet.apa.org...

it's impossible to artificially raise the quality of education, holistically, by funding the lower and middle class. low-quality schools will still exist... funding everyone who is lower-class and middle-class will not make all educational institutions magically better. artificial introduction of funding to the lower and middle class for education will basically work in the same way that the principle of inflation works... as you boost people's work salaries, the prices of everything just goes up. the artificial introduction of money into a system, therefore, doesnt work.

You say it is impossible to raise this issue. But clearly it has been raised by myself, and it is a legitimate concern and is obviously not impossible to raise. It is not only a question of the "quality of education" but more so concerning why there is no government funding for these type of schooling systems- for these class types.
I am not sure how you concluded that I am under the impression that funding these class types will "magically" make the educational institutions better. It is about a matter of choice here and equal opportunity.
I am also hesitant to believe that it would be an "artificial" investment. And I feel that term has been overused in this context and is irrelevant.
The government has the money, always did and always will. For them, it is a matter of choosing to direct it there. Enrolling students into schools better suited for they're needs and development is crucial and will promote nothing but positive growth in the working industry- not just for the economy but ethically and will motivate them to get out in the world and be who they actually wanto be because they had the tools of expansion, rather than a narrow presentation of typical options.
I do propose that your argument is weak and lacking in substance. I also disagree that this type of scenario can be compared to the principle of inflation. I believe things would actually level out and who is to say there would be a demand for higher salaries? Introducing this type of funding would create more competitive work environments. Even if inflation was prominent- Keynesian's would argue that some inflation is good for the economy based on the natural plateaus of the market and it would as it would allow labor markets to reach equilibrium faster-without elaborating to far into the subject. I think it can work, and most likely will be a future reality.

you're misinterpreting what I'm saying.. i didn't say raise the issue; i said raise the actual quality...

if the government funds the poor and the middle class to have the same educational quality as the upperclass, it would be futile, because then the quality of education would remain constant, while the cost of education would rise proportionally with the amount of money that is given to lower- and middle-class people for education. if the goal is to improve quality of education, then it will fail... inflation would effectively raise prices, but it would not, in itself, boost quality.

May I ask how you figure the quality of education would remain non-changing if it were equal opportunity?? The learning experience will be different for each individual. It is like asking 50 people to interpret a painting. All will have a different perspective and will see differently. Just as I had mentioned like in the Montessori setting, where the learning is self directed- How would that be monotonous? If anything, I believe the costs would balance out more as previously mentioned. Your points seem to be simplistic for such a complex subject. Are you saying that this action would be counter-productive to the interests of the governments financial aspect? Or do you mean counter-productive to the people? Shouldn't the peoples best interests be taken into account first and foremost? More Money=More Investment=More learning systems in place= EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND VARIETY. Opportunity is the key word here, if I must stress the point in hand. I do not think a lazy hypothesis or brief prediction of what would happen to the inflation rates is relevant. A matter of lowering costs to make it more accessible would be more ideal along with funding, if they approach the issue systematically and methodically.

Our society is controlled by corporate interests/capitalists who ensure that public policy and the tax code are designed to serve their interests at the expense of the less privileged. 80% of American population is negative net worth. Can you say injustice? This has to do with GREED strictly.

"Another reason is trust funds.

Finally, the richer tend to have access to the best of everything such as education.

Clearly, the rich; overall, tend to be rich because they have opportunities available to them such as expensive schools, which ensure that they're successful and a plethora of other reasons.

To attend an exceptional university, costs money. Something poor people don't have. Furthermore, if you'll take notice, most rich people have careers that require above-average, if not, genius IQs such as lawyers, doctors, stock brokers, investment bankers, etc. All of these professions pay the most money, but also usually require a great deal of money, in terms of attending universities, in order, to get the education necessary, in order, to acquire these high-paying jobs.

Conversely, the poor don't have access to the best educational facilities, the best teachers, trust funds, investment opportunities, etc. Add to the simple fact that some, if not, many poor people suffer from low self-esteem, lack of motivation, having child(ren) at a younger age, dropping out of high school, and other factors, and you have a recipe for poverty.

Clearly, there is no solution to ending poverty. Ultimately, due to the plethora of variables there is NOT one specific solution that can end poverty. As long as there is greed and people purposefully trying to prevent others from also getting equal educations, then a growing disparity between the rich and poor will continue to escalate as unfair as that may seem."

My point is the money IS there, the resources ARE there. The debate is whether it would be beneficial or not to implement this idea , and it most obviously would be. But will it open, most likely not since the ruling class elite control the financial systems. Should it happen, YES. Does it make more sense to build the educational systems this way - YOU BETCHA. Can you say BS?- YES.